Rhonda Holman has since changed the title to "Novak left a mark" -- but I captured the original headline.
Update: A reader sent this post from Rhonda Holman, apparently posted after the headline change. She says she meant no disrespect.
Hat tip: email
Rhonda Holman is a piece of work. Her words of course should have credence as an aditorialist simply because she was the Ballet reporter for the NY Times.
See why we several eyes checking copy before it is published/posted? And the difference between most newspapers (before they cut staffs to the bare bones) and almost all blogs?
I need my own editor -- I guess proving my point. Insert "need" between "we" and "several" in the 12:48 post.
Speaking of darkness, Rhonda Holman should be considered a modern day Bitch of Belsen. While The Kansas City Star is probably more corrupt than The Eagle, The Eagle is a very hateful paper. It's blogs are far more vicious and hateful based frequently in response to Holman's daily hate-o-grams.
The Eagle also covered up for Tiller and his legal allies, Nola Foulston the county DA and Gary Rebenstodrf, Ttiller's butt boy Wichita City Attorney.
Nothing wrong with the headline. That's what Bobby billed himself as.
And, no, I'm not filling out another damned password account for this stupid website.
How do you know Holman chose the headline? Novak was quite proud of his nickname. I don't think there's a conspiracy here. Sorry.
It's an inappropriate headline for an obituary. A profile, yes, even a second day follow-up, but not for the obituary. If a rookie reporter didn't understand that, his or her editor would set them straight in a New York minute.
///The Eagle is a very hateful paper. It's blogs are far more vicious and hateful based frequently in response to Holman's daily hate-o-grams.///
Aren't you the one who thinks that blogs should bastions of free speech, no matter how "hateful" any one person may consider a post to be, and that posts should almost never be deleted or censored? And that in any case, the blog's administrator has the sole right to decide what should be deleted?
Nothing wrong with the headline.
Uh huh. That would be why they changed it post haste. Nothing at all wrong with it.
At least we know you will not be complaining about what is said about Dear Ted when his final meeting with Mary Jo comes to be in the near future.
Advocating free speech is not inconsistent with pointing out the content of that speech. The KKK, or The Eagle, may have the right to spew hate, but I also have the right to express my opinion of their product.
Let me add that the owner of a private blog such as this one has the right to defend his blog from attack by those whose only goal is to do the blog damage.
Newspapers, on the other hand, should be far more open to a wider range of views, including, and especially, those who are critical of the paper. However, comments should be uniquely identified so that those who submit libelous, or threatening posts (as some libs have done on here) can be held accountable.
...The KKK, or The Eagle, may have the right to spew hate, but I also have the right to express my opinion of their product...
Nobody said you didn't. And liberals (or "trolls") have the right to express their opinion on this blog, contrary to what I think you said not long ago.
...Let me add that the owner of a private blog such as this one has the right to defend his blog from attack by those whose only goal is to do the blog damage...
I'm not sure that you can read the minds and/or motives of someone you don't know, any more than we can read your mind or motives -- although, since you choose to identify yourself (unfortunately, most of us don't have that luxury), we can research your past writings and political activities, and thus make some reasonable assumptions.
Re: “blogs should ^ bastions of free speech”- Newspaper brand blogs should still fall under fair and balanced reporting, because that is what the public expects. Private blogs can not only set and enforce any rules they want, they can delete any comments that stray from the thread’s topic, or for any reason at all. Blogs are a lot of work, with perhaps little pay. To expect bloggers to allow a bunch of cretins to ruin their blogs in the name of free speech, is insane.MOO
...Let me add that the owner of a private blog such as this one has the right to defend his blog from attack by those whose only goal is to do the blog damage. Newspapers, on the other hand, should be far more open to a wider range of views, including, and especially, those who are critical of the paper...
Why? Aren't newspapers private companies, too? And don't some blogs have many times more readers that most newspapers?
Why? Aren't newspapers private companies, too?
Yes and no. They are provided special considerations and exemptions from Anti Trust laws under the misleading guise of protectors of the public interest.
Therefore, they are not free market, private entities, especially the ones now accepting public monies, loans and subsidies.
This slippery M/O will come back to haunt them soon enough, even if their customers don't do it for them.
Yep, If I were a liberal apologist, I wouldn't want to talk about a liberal rag using a mean, tasteless headline on the day of a great reporter either. I would not want to talk about how its all hate all the time for the liberals. I would not want to talk about their lack of respect or their lack of class. Anything b but having to deal with the subject.
"Yep, If I were a liberal apologist, I wouldn't want to talk about a liberal rag using a mean, tasteless headline on the day of a great reporter either."
I don't know if any of the posters are liberals or conservatives, but nobody apologized for any headline. In fact, they said it pointed out the need for editors, and criticized newspapers for cutting staff.
The post about liberal apologists is about all of the off topic posts on the thread. It's people who could not defend the indefensible but who instead attacked the blog.
It's time to return to the thread about the Novak's death and the headline.
All the posts except the one about "liberal apologists" WERE on the topic.
``Prince of Darkness'' is what he called himself, doofus. It's the title of his autobiography! And the term was used in other headlines about his death, including the Washington Post, where he wrote for a time.
Before you get all outraged, do some checking!
Post a Comment